The Maryland State Capitol building, in Annapolis. The Washington Post has called Maryland "comically gerrymandered" and labeled its congressional districts "highly partisan and racially charged." (Photo: Jimmy Emerson, DVM/flickr/cc)

A panel of federal judges on Wednesday advanced what an expert says could be "the biggest gerrymandering case in a generation"—one that could have nationwide implications for elections and democracy across the United States.

The three-judge court ruled 2-1 (pdf) that the First Amendment-based claim against partisan gerrymandering regarding Maryland's sixth congressional district is valid and may proceed, either to summary judgment or trial. The ruling has no bearing on voting this November, and a decision would apply only to future elections.

"Today's decision is another victory for voters and their right to choose their legislators rather than allowing legislators to choose their voters."—Karen Hobart Flynn, Common Cause

The case, brought by American University law student Steve Shapiro, argues that Maryland's congressional district map, drawn by Democratic lawmakers following the 2010 Census, violated the rights of 6th District Republican voters to political association and expression.

But as the case has the potential to set a national precedent restricting partisan gerrymandering, its moving forward is "excellent news for both Democrats and democracy because of how widespread Republican gerrymandering is nationwide," Daily Kos contributing editor Stephen Wolf wrote Wednesday.

Michael Kimberly, Shapiro's attorney, said that if his client prevails at trial, and the case ends up back in the Supreme Court, it could eventually bring sweeping changes to redistricting across the country.

"This could be the biggest gerrymandering case in a generation," Kimberly said. "It could have enormous impact."

Karen Hobart Flynn, president of the pro-democracy group Common Cause, noted in an op-ed earlier this month that "gerrymandering pits political power against the people, regardless of which party holds power."

On Wednesday, in response to the judges' ruling, Hobart Flynn added: "Today's decision is another victory for voters and their right to choose their legislators rather than allowing legislators to choose their voters. Partisan gerrymanders strip citizens of the ability to elect the candidates of their choice and that is why Common Cause is fighting this gerrymander by Democrats in Maryland and why we have brought suit challenging a blatant partisan gerrymander perpetrated by Republicans in North Carolina."

The North Carolina lawsuit was brought by Common Cause in early August. It argues that the legislature's gerrymander is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

"What is at stake is whether politicians have the power to manipulate voting maps to unjustly insulate themselves from accountability, or whether voters have the fundamental right as Americans to choose their representatives in fair and open elections," Phillips said upon filing suit. "We believe this is a vital case that could strike at the very foundation of gerrymandering."

Further

Academics are increasingly, ingeniously fighting back against an Orwellian "Professor Watchlist" aimed at exposing "radical" teachers. The list has inspired online trolls to name their own suspects - Albus Dumbledore, Dr. Pepper, Mr. Spock - and a Watchlist Redux to honor not trash targets from Jesus to teachers daring to "think critically about power." Now 100 Notre Dame professors have asked to join the list in solidarity, proclaiming, "We wish to be counted among those you are watching."